Our Flag: Long May She Wave

President-elect Donald J. Trump has made fools of the mainstream media once again, with his tweet about flag burners–how, in his opinion, they ought to receive some sort of punishment. Typically, the media, and the left, went berserk.

All Trump did was to suggest possible punishments, which Hillary Clinton herself suggested in a bill, which she herself introduced when she was a senator. Her bill didn’t pass, but even so, it was also Hillary’s idea to punish flag burners.

“But, but, but,” the media and the left spluttered. “She didn’t try to take away their citizenship.” Well, neither did Trump. All he said was that “perhaps” that might be a suitable punishment. A suggestion.

There’s no evidence in the 140-character Tweet, that Trump doesn’t know that it would take a law that he’d have to sign to punish flag burning.

Flag burning. It’s a constitutional right. Protected free speech, according to the Supreme Court. Well, to a degree. It’s symbolic speech and should be protected under the First Amendment, when that’s all it is. Not when it’s a threat. Not when it’s intimidation. Not when it’s deliberately offensive to, for example, our veterans. (In other words, when it represents the equivalent of “fighting words,” designed to incite anger or violence.) And especially not when it’s done to someone else’s flag on someone else’s property.

Isn’t it odd how the same folks who avidly defend the “right” to burn the U.S. flag also rabidly go after other types of symbolic speech, such as flying the Confederate Flag, burning a cross, or putting up monuments to Confederate leaders and even some of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves?

The thing is, and this is a point that should be made very clear: It’s notprotected speech to take down and burn someone else’s flag. No, that’s called vandalism and theft.

When the flag belongs to the college you attend and it’s flying on a flagpole that belongs to that institution, then you have no constitutional right to take it down and destroy it. Of course, it’s up to the administration of any private institution how they react to such vandalism, theft, and arson; but giving unruly, disrespectful students a pass cannot be defended as protection of their First Amendment rights.

Any institution that looks the other way should be prepared to face the consequences in the form of angry parents, veterans, and students who disagree, not to mention probable drops in enrollment as well as donations. They also ought to check their insurance policies to see if they cover looking the other way and allowing arson that might get out of control and damage other property and even perhaps endanger human lives. Think on that, politically correct university administrators.

It’s another story altogether if the institution is a public university, funded by taxpayer dollars. It would seem that in that case the administration shouldhave no choice whatsoever but to punish the students severely. Nobody has a constitutional right to commit vandalism, theft, or arson on public property, of public property.

Similarly, and this is another point that should be made very clear: It’s absolutely notpeaceful protest and it’s no one’s constitutional right to block roads or highways, interfering with the free movement of other people. In fact, if it’s a federal highway, it should be a federal offense.

Too often these days, law enforcement have been ordered to “stand down” and allow some individuals, in the name of “peaceful protest” or “free speech,” to interfere with the lives of their fellow citizens. This has only emboldened so-called protesters to perform even more inflammatory and disruptive acts.

There’s a new sheriff in town now. Something tells me that the laissez-faire attitude will soon change, when President Trump takes office.

Just as the Border Patrol will soon be able to do their jobs again, police and highway patrol officers will soon be able to do their jobs again. Thanks to the fundamental transformation of Washington DC.

Actually, I find this extremely concerning. We’ve been told that it’s impossible and never been done for someone to have a vote swing of thousands of votes. iow, maybe 100 either way but that it’s impossible for Clinton to catch up by 22,000 votes, for example. And yet, here we are, with supposedly a 15,000+ swing in favor of Trump. So what are we seeing here? In a hand recount, the FRAUD used typically by the DemoncRATS is being uncovered? WTF?!!! Now in PA, there was a swing because some counties had just finished up their counting of absentee and provisional ballots. That I can see. But how can they explain this result? It’s concerning because this will add “evidence” to Stein’s argument that something was in “error” in the first place. They’re trying to put a stop to the recount and, iirc, there’s going to be a hearing on Monday. I don’t trust ANY of this. WHERE EXACTLY WERE THESE VOTES BEFORE (and, conversely, were did they go)? How can ANYONE know that these ballots they’re counting are the SAME BALLOTS cast on election day? While I’m happy that he’s got thousands more to seal the deal, it’s very concerning that the numbers are NOT coming out more or less the same.

The article is poorly written and one sentence in particular makes no sense. The writer goes on to say the math is correct, after someone challenged the reasoning. The writer says the only explanation is that 10s of thousands of votes are being “invalidated” during the recount. How can that be possible? Double voting, yeah, but AT THIS POINT there’s no indication that a person double voted because the ballots are divorced from the voter. Nobody knows WHO cast the ballot. I certainly can believe that the DemoncRATS in Milwaukee and other big cities on a regular basis rig the votes. Maybe they run ballots through a couple of times, if they’re DemoncRAT ballots. But wouldn’t that mess up the totals? They have to know exactly how many voters showed up to cast ballots so the NUMBER of total ballots has to remain the same.

Are we seeing lots of signatures not matching absentee ballots? Or are we seeing unregistered voters removed? Dead? Felons removed? Pile of Trump ballots in a trunk? Uncovering Soros bigtime fraud and rigging that has been going on far too long? I want to know where these votes are coming from to start charging people with election fraud or tampering or whatever we throw on them.

I don’t really understand. You’d probably have to look at the raw before and after numbers, by precinct. I think they’re talking about “net” gain or loss. So maybe Trump picked up 3 and Hillary 1, so she lost 2. I think. They “find” votes because some got lost in jams (although how they know it wasn’t registered the first time, I’d like to know) and because they “found” a stack of a few votes that weren’t counted the first time. (Again, how do they know, unless they were sitting in a drawer somewhere, forgotten?)

I don’t even know if they’re looking at that. There’s such a thing as an “audit” that does look at that, but this is just a recount. They ought to be comparing who voted to who’s registered. They did in NV by sending out letters to voters, after the election. THOUSANDS came back undeliverable, which means the votes were illegal. But counted already and, at this point, no way to uncount them because you can GUESS but never know who to take the illegal votes away from.

The DemoncRATS will probably use their OWN FRAUD in NV and NC to argue for the recounts in WI, PA, and MI. A Catch-22 if I ever heard of one. This will be a mess. That same law firm, Perkins Coie, which we WELL KNOW from their involvement with Barry’s fake BC, is also representing CLINTON.

So ridiculous. The companies will likely sue and WTPOTUS will have to pay them. They already got permission BEFORE they built the pipeline. Over a thousand miles and only 1/5 of a mile to go and Obama’s peeps stop it now, kowtowing to a minority. Hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, will be negatively affected. Our energy independence at risk. All to be politically correct. All because these people claim that POTENTIALLY there MIGHT be a spill (underground! in a tunnel under the lake!) and that MIGHT affect the water in the lake. So all those jobs lost. All the people of this country negatively affected. There are greater risks of spills in trucking this stuff all over the place, or sending it by rail. They had permission. They got the permits and the rights. NOW Obama pulls this stunt just to hurt Trump. It solves his problem with the protestors potentially freezing to death ON HIS WATCH before Jan. 20. So he stops it. They go home, only to come back again after Jan. 20, when Trump RESTORES THE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN PERMITS and the pipeline gets finished. Yeah, MAYBE it’s good for the Native Americans (but certainly not proven) but it’s sure harming a heck of a lot of OTHER PEOPLE, which is why Trump won in the first place. NOBODY is more important than everybody else, but in Obama’s world “people of color” have MORE RIGHTS and are due MORE CONSIDERATION than others. That’s WHY Hillary lost.

I hope Trump’s people are on this. This is getting outrageous. It’s a plan and has been a plan for a long, long time. He has to appeal to the SCOTUS. A FEDERAL judge has NO AUTHORITY to interfere in a State’s laws. States run their elections according to their state laws. The law was NOT followed in either MI or PA. But Stein’s going to federal court in BOTH states.

Trump needs to appeal ASAP to the Court of Appeals. There’s still a hearing tomorrow in MI. The judge ordered the recount to start, but it might be argued he did that only for the purpose of meeting deadlines IN CASE a recount is ordered under MI law during that hearing, but it’s already been proved to be an invalid petition as it wasn’t notarized according to state law. They’re hinging this on what they always have: “disenfranchisement of voters.” Hanging their argument on “violations of the voting rights act.” (Really that needs to be overturned. It’s ridiculous.) The voters are NOT disenfranchised. They voted. The votes were counted (twice, I believe). The votes were CERTIFIED already. So it would seem that even if they miss the deadline, they can submit the totals already CERTIFIED.

The only reason they want to do a hand recount is for the alleged 80,000+ “undervotes” where ballots had no choice for president. But it’s entirely reasonable to believe that people who wanted to weigh in on OTHER races left the president slot blank since MANY people were not happy with their choices. We can hope, at best, that 80,000+ of the typically progressive/liberal voters in MI actually had the morality to REJECT Hillary, not being able to vote for that corrupt witch. Something positive, at least.

But my fear is that by now they have ALREADY TAMPERED WITH THOSE BALLOTS AND “VOTED” FOR THE ORIGINAL VOTER. They will claim machine error caused the ballots to not be read. It’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY. It’s far more likely for “mistakes” in counting to be made by human beings than by machines, which are probably 99.9% totally accurate. Only if there are jams or wrinkled ballots MIGHT the machine not record a result, but surely the person feeding the forms into the machine would NOTICE that.

Gateway Pundit has a story about another “anomaly” wherein suddenly there were 41,000+ MORE VOTES for PRESIDENT than for senator in PA. Now isn’t THAT suspicious, too? Under what theory would these people not vote for their senator but WOULD choose (probably Hillary) for president? My guess is that these are typical rigged up votes where ONLY the presidential choice was made. Riggers are lazy. They’re in it for speed; they don’t want to waste time voting in all the slots and potentially messing up those races, too–races they don’t intend to rig.

There’s another case I read about yesterday where in NC somebody (the same person, according to the handwriting) WROTE IN A CANDIDATE’S NAME on some apparently legitimate ballots. It was for some minor county or state functionary position. Nothing to do with the House, Senate, or President. BUT it indicated fraud where somebody in the elections office tampered with ballots, adding votes in that race to the choices the voter APPARENTLY made, but who knows? The person might as well have added the votes for the other choices, and added in the write-in vote, too. The ruling was apparently that these ballots were despoiled and so shouldn’t count but, of course, “disenfranchisement” was alleged and the DemoncRAT lawyer argued that the OTHER votes should count, even though the lawyer had no idea which, if any, of the choices were made fraudulently.

I’d like to point out, too, the welcome Stein’s suits are getting in the courts, based upon CONSPIRACY THEORIES, and compare that to the reception legitimate arguments against Barry’s eligibility got in courts from the get-go, before he even got on ballots. What about the disenfranchisement we all felt having suffered for the past 8 years under his administration? The Trump campaign ought to have challenged this suit on the fundamental concept that FEDERAL court is not the place to contest this state law. She did not EXHAUST all the remedies given to her under state law. She didn’t go through the process. Dropped her challenge in the state court, for example, in PA and jumped right to the federal courts, SHOPPING for a more friendly result. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/04/oh-my-jill-stein-to-take-pennsylvania-recount-challenge-into-federal-court-n2254889

As in Michigan, they didn’t follow the PA laws, either. She missed deadlines. She screwed it up. In MI, the law says they wait two days for the recount to start. Well, she doesn’t want to follow state laws and apparently LAWS DON’T APPLY TO PEOPLE LIKE STEIN AND CLINTON. They’re EXEMPT and any DemoncRAT powers that be allow them to be “more equal” than everybody else. This is just the beginning of the laws they will flout. Faithless electors? Challenges to electoral votes? (Remember THAT possibility? IF he does get the electoral votes from those 3 states, their Plan C will probably be to challenge them. And they will challenge all of them, probably, on the argument that Hillary won the popular vote. There’s NO END to their mendacity.)

The thing is, we can all say this is unfair and it is. It’s illegal. Unconstitutional. Unfair. But WHO’S GOING TO GIVE US JUSTICE? Under Obama, as we’ve seen, there’s NO JUSTICE and NO RECOURSE for the people against the privileged elites in the DemoncRAT cabal.

Backers of Hamilton Electors are also preparing a wave of lawsuits challenging 29 state laws that purport to bind electors to the results of the statewide popular vote. These laws have never been enforced or tested, and many constitutional scholars believe they conflict with the Founders’ vision of the Electoral College as a deliberative body. Courtroom victories, they hope, will embolden other electors to join their cause.”

What would be the point of the populace voting if outcome not connected to electors? Electors deliver their state’s vote to DC. If this was not the case then we would instead vote for our electors in similar manner as for president, with all the campaigning and vetting and scrutiny.

Exactly. Good question. What is the point then? Some articles I read said that the electoral college vote is now just a formality that’s part of tradition (as well as being part of the Constitution), but it’s been amended and the states run the show. However, the articles also say that it IS potentially possible for the electoral college to vote totally against the will of the people. They could, in theory, all vote for Clinton, or enough of them to give her a majority. It would create a constitutional crisis and chaos, which, as we know, is often the DemoncRATS’ plan but also for sure always OBAMA’S plan. Laughably, the article also said that Obama and Clinton wouldn’t go along with it. Right. So this fool thinks, who probably adores them both but has never seen them for the power-hungry, narcissists that they are.

I read an article yesterday by that insider, Ed Klein, who said that Hillary and Obama are in on this chaos of recounts and electoral votes being suborned. It makes sense. Of course it does. On the surface, both PRETEND to accept the election. This probably explains why Obama was so ebullient after meeting with Trump, KNOWING THIS PLAN WAS IN MOTION. He’s at his happiest when he’s being his most devious. The article even said that they concocted this chaotic plan to cheer Hillary up because she was so despondent over her loss. THAT I could not believe. Or maybe I could, but I couldn’t believe anybody would ADMIT IT. These people both claim to be selfless servants of the country. But they deliberately create chaos to DAMAGE the country? Yes, we know they do but the mainstream and most people DON’T believe that and they both pretend otherwise to fool most of the people who support them all of the time.

The people are not going to stand for any steal of the election. The best thing going for us is that the Republican Party, EVEN THE NEVER-TRUMPERS, have to know that to ignore the will of the people will DOOM the Republican Party FOREVER. Trump, then, can just form his own party and for the first time in a long time there WILL BE A VIABLE THIRD PARTY that WILL win and the other two will go down in history as abject failures, as at this point they probably both deserve to be. Either they get on the Trump Train or what? They go back to another 8 years of gridlock, being Alinsky victims, and uselessness.